Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.814

onset_age

250

36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68)

0.732

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.155

-0.431, 0.175

0.408

time_point

1st

2nd

0.007

0.135

-0.258, 0.272

0.958

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.211

0.195

-0.172, 0.594

0.281

Pseudo R square

0.004

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.827, 0.667

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.226

0.251

-0.717, 0.266

0.370

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.968

0.364

0.255, 1.68

0.008

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.503

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.711

-1.06, 1.73

0.637

time_point

1st

2nd

0.717

0.406

-0.079, 1.51

0.079

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.20

0.590

0.042, 2.35

0.044

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.184

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.260

-0.478, 0.542

0.902

time_point

1st

2nd

0.030

0.176

-0.316, 0.376

0.866

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.318

0.256

-0.184, 0.820

0.215

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.290

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.410

-0.459, 1.15

0.402

time_point

1st

2nd

0.364

0.265

-0.155, 0.883

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.520

0.384

-0.233, 1.27

0.177

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.544, 0.912

0.621

time_point

1st

2nd

0.329

0.214

-0.090, 0.748

0.125

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.344

0.311

-0.265, 0.952

0.270

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.214

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.303

-0.986, 0.202

0.197

time_point

1st

2nd

0.038

0.216

-0.384, 0.461

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.818

0.313

0.205, 1.43

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.877

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.240

-3.72, 1.14

0.300

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.44

0.664

-2.74, -0.139

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.067

0.965

-1.83, 1.96

0.945

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.408

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.577

-1.14, 1.12

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.375

0.347

-0.306, 1.06

0.282

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.183

0.504

-0.805, 1.17

0.717

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.514

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.727

-0.585, 2.27

0.249

time_point

1st

2nd

0.390

0.426

-0.445, 1.22

0.361

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.219

0.619

-0.994, 1.43

0.724

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.642

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.908

-0.411, 3.15

0.133

time_point

1st

2nd

1.19

0.495

0.222, 2.16

0.017

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.082

0.719

-1.49, 1.33

0.910

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.334

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.473

-0.574, 1.28

0.457

time_point

1st

2nd

0.324

0.264

-0.194, 0.842

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.041

0.384

-0.712, 0.794

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.543

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.768

-1.50, 1.50

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.731

0.438

-0.128, 1.59

0.097

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.341

0.637

-0.908, 1.59

0.593

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.627

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.887

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

0.999

0.478

0.062, 1.94

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.153

0.695

-1.51, 1.21

0.826

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.389

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.551

-0.319, 1.84

0.168

time_point

1st

2nd

0.736

0.351

0.047, 1.42

0.038

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.449

0.510

-0.551, 1.45

0.380

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.250

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.354

0.051, 1.44

0.036

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.105

0.211

-0.520, 0.309

0.620

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.438

0.307

-0.164, 1.04

0.156

Pseudo R square

0.029

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.398, 1.18

0.332

time_point

1st

2nd

0.300

0.237

-0.164, 0.764

0.207

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.371

0.344

-0.304, 1.05

0.282

Pseudo R square

0.013

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.294

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.416

-0.119, 1.51

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.286

0.225

-0.156, 0.727

0.206

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.246

0.327

-0.396, 0.888

0.453

Pseudo R square

0.018

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.763

-0.407, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.598

0.395

-0.176, 1.37

0.132

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.610

0.574

-0.516, 1.74

0.290

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.817

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.155

-3.48, 1.05

0.293

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.788

0.628

-2.02, 0.443

0.211

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.53

0.913

-3.32, 0.258

0.095

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.447

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.632

-0.230, 2.25

0.112

time_point

1st

2nd

0.378

0.342

-0.293, 1.05

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.513

0.497

-0.461, 1.49

0.303

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.363

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.513

0.003, 2.01

0.050

time_point

1st

2nd

0.571

0.305

-0.027, 1.17

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.287

0.444

-0.582, 1.16

0.518

Pseudo R square

0.026

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.770

27.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.090

-0.119, 4.15

0.065

time_point

1st

2nd

0.949

0.592

-0.211, 2.11

0.110

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.797

0.861

-0.890, 2.48

0.355

Pseudo R square

0.024

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.198

-0.460, 0.316

0.716

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.209

0.166

-0.534, 0.117

0.211

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.306

0.240

-0.165, 0.777

0.204

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.310

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.438

-0.139, 1.58

0.101

time_point

1st

2nd

0.647

0.318

0.023, 1.27

0.043

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.703

0.461

-1.61, 0.201

0.129

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.377

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.533

-0.581, 1.51

0.385

time_point

1st

2nd

0.586

0.340

-0.081, 1.25

0.087

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.338

0.494

-0.630, 1.31

0.495

Pseudo R square

0.013

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.617

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.873

-0.528, 2.90

0.176

time_point

1st

2nd

1.24

0.572

0.122, 2.36

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.374

0.830

-2.00, 1.25

0.653

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.402

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.569

-0.588, 1.64

0.354

time_point

1st

2nd

0.722

0.332

0.071, 1.37

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.040

0.483

-0.907, 0.986

0.935

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.223

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.316

-0.627, 0.611

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.192

0.241

-0.280, 0.663

0.427

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.547

0.349

-0.136, 1.23

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.276

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.391

-0.853, 0.677

0.822

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.453

0.281

-1.00, 0.097

0.108

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.431

0.407

-1.23, 0.367

0.291

Pseudo R square

0.014

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.325

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.460

-0.677, 1.12

0.626

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.368

0.257

-0.872, 0.137

0.155

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.673

0.374

-1.41, 0.060

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.332

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.470

-1.00, 0.841

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.524

0.265

-1.04, -0.005

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.253

0.385

-1.01, 0.501

0.511

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.334

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.519, 1.33

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.309

0.263

-0.825, 0.206

0.241

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.690

0.382

-1.44, 0.059

0.073

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.935

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.323

-2.04, 3.14

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.20

0.666

-2.51, 0.103

0.073

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.56

0.969

-3.46, 0.335

0.108

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(431) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(431) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27], t(431) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 5.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.59], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(431) = 66.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(431) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.27], t(431) = -0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.25, 1.68], t(431) = 2.66, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.09, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(431) = 59.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(431) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.51], t(431) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.04, 2.35], t(431) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [7.46e-03, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(431) = 63.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(431) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.38], t(431) = 0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.82], t(431) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(431) = 59.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(431) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.88], t(431) = 1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.27], t(431) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(431) = 50.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(431) = 0.50, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.75], t(431) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.95], t(431) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(431) = 46.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(431) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.46], t(431) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [0.20, 1.43], t(431) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.85e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(431) = 35.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(431) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.74, -0.14], t(431) = -2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.96], t(431) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 6.91e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(431) = 54.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(431) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.06], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.17], t(431) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(431) = 47.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(431) = 1.16, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.22], t(431) = 0.92, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.43], t(431) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(431) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(431) = 1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.22, 2.16], t(431) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.33], t(431) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(431) = 31.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(431) = 0.74, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.84], t(431) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.79], t(431) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(431) = 27.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.09e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(431) = -5.32e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 4.45e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.59], t(431) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.59], t(431) = 0.53, p = 0.593; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(431) = 34.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(431) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.06, 1.94], t(431) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [8.94e-03, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.21], t(431) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(431) = 41.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(431) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.42], t(431) = 2.09, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.45], t(431) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(431) = 52.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(431) = 2.10, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.31], t(431) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.04], t(431) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(431) = 58.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(431) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.76], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.05], t(431) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(431) = 42.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(431) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.73], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.89], t(431) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(431) = 54.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(431) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.37], t(431) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.74], t(431) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(431) = 34.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(431) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.44], t(431) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.32, 0.26], t(431) = -1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(431) = 30.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(431) = 1.60, p = 0.110; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.05], t(431) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.49], t(431) = 1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(431) = 42.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [2.62e-03, 2.01], t(431) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [6.39e-04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.17], t(431) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-6.64e-03, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.16], t(431) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(431) = 37.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(431) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.11], t(431) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.48], t(431) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(431) = 91.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(431) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.12], t(431) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.78], t(431) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(431) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(431) = 1.64, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.02, 1.27], t(431) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [6.77e-03, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.20], t(431) = -1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(431) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(431) = 0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.25], t(431) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.31], t(431) = 0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(431) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(431) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [0.12, 2.36], t(431) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.00, 1.25], t(431) = -0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(431) = 46.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(431) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.07, 1.37], t(431) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.99], t(431) = 0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = 8.88e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(431) = 64.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(431) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.66], t(431) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.23], t(431) = 1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(431) = 42.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(431) = -0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.10], t(431) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.23, 0.37], t(431) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(431) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(431) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.14], t(431) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.06], t(431) = -1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(431) = 30.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(431) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.04, -4.67e-03], t(431) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, -1.26e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.50], t(431) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(431) = 26.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(431) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.21], t(431) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.06], t(431) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(431) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(431) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.10], t(431) = -1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 9.86e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-3.46, 0.33], t(431) = -1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,394.924

1,407.163

-694.462

1,388.924

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,398.405

1,422.885

-693.203

1,386.405

2.518

3

0.472

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,115.255

2,127.495

-1,054.628

2,109.255

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,112.036

2,136.516

-1,050.018

2,100.036

9.219

3

0.027

ras_confidence

null

3

2,629.549

2,641.788

-1,311.774

2,623.549

ras_confidence

random

6

2,612.300

2,636.780

-1,300.150

2,600.300

23.249

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,785.452

1,797.692

-889.726

1,779.452

ras_willingness

random

6

1,787.505

1,811.984

-887.752

1,775.505

3.947

3

0.267

ras_goal

null

3

2,177.074

2,189.314

-1,085.537

2,171.074

ras_goal

random

6

2,169.481

2,193.961

-1,078.741

2,157.481

13.592

3

0.004

ras_reliance

null

3

2,053.341

2,065.580

-1,023.670

2,047.341

ras_reliance

random

6

2,047.558

2,072.038

-1,017.779

2,035.558

11.782

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

1,943.154

1,955.393

-968.577

1,937.154

ras_domination

random

6

1,934.995

1,959.475

-961.498

1,922.995

14.159

3

0.003

symptom

null

3

3,080.731

3,092.971

-1,537.366

3,074.731

symptom

random

6

3,077.232

3,101.712

-1,532.616

3,065.232

9.499

3

0.023

slof_work

null

3

2,444.009

2,456.249

-1,219.004

2,438.009

slof_work

random

6

2,446.500

2,470.980

-1,217.250

2,434.500

3.509

3

0.320

slof_relationship

null

3

2,638.505

2,650.745

-1,316.252

2,632.505

slof_relationship

random

6

2,640.076

2,664.556

-1,314.038

2,628.076

4.429

3

0.219

satisfaction

null

3

2,816.691

2,828.931

-1,405.345

2,810.691

satisfaction

random

6

2,810.386

2,834.865

-1,399.193

2,798.386

12.305

3

0.006

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,246.308

2,258.548

-1,120.154

2,240.308

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,248.486

2,272.965

-1,118.243

2,236.486

3.823

3

0.281

mhc_social

null

3

2,681.261

2,693.501

-1,337.631

2,675.261

mhc_social

random

6

2,679.244

2,703.724

-1,333.622

2,667.244

8.017

3

0.046

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,787.833

2,800.072

-1,390.916

2,781.833

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,786.705

2,811.185

-1,387.353

2,774.705

7.127

3

0.068

resilisnce

null

3

2,435.555

2,447.795

-1,214.778

2,429.555

resilisnce

random

6

2,424.198

2,448.678

-1,206.099

2,412.198

17.357

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

2,020.452

2,032.692

-1,007.226

2,014.452

social_provision

random

6

2,016.552

2,041.032

-1,002.276

2,004.552

9.900

3

0.019

els_value_living

null

3

2,130.035

2,142.275

-1,062.018

2,124.035

els_value_living

random

6

2,125.479

2,149.959

-1,056.740

2,113.479

10.556

3

0.014

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,130.706

2,142.946

-1,062.353

2,124.706

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,126.328

2,150.808

-1,057.164

2,114.328

10.378

3

0.016

els

null

3

2,648.681

2,660.920

-1,321.340

2,642.681

els

random

6

2,641.104

2,665.584

-1,314.552

2,629.104

13.577

3

0.004

social_connect

null

3

3,030.082

3,042.322

-1,512.041

3,024.082

social_connect

random

6

3,020.001

3,044.481

-1,504.001

3,008.001

16.081

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,496.188

2,508.427

-1,245.094

2,490.188

shs_agency

random

6

2,491.116

2,515.596

-1,239.558

2,479.116

11.071

3

0.011

shs_pathway

null

3

2,349.870

2,362.109

-1,171.935

2,343.870

shs_pathway

random

6

2,340.330

2,364.810

-1,164.165

2,328.330

15.539

3

0.001

shs

null

3

2,977.868

2,990.108

-1,485.934

2,971.868

shs

random

6

2,968.904

2,993.383

-1,478.452

2,956.904

14.964

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,601.467

1,613.707

-797.733

1,595.467

esteem

random

6

1,605.465

1,629.945

-796.733

1,593.465

2.002

3

0.572

mlq_search

null

3

2,262.007

2,274.247

-1,128.004

2,256.007

mlq_search

random

6

2,262.679

2,287.159

-1,125.340

2,250.679

5.328

3

0.149

mlq_presence

null

3

2,400.777

2,413.016

-1,197.388

2,394.777

mlq_presence

random

6

2,396.069

2,420.549

-1,192.035

2,384.069

10.707

3

0.013

mlq

null

3

2,837.514

2,849.754

-1,415.757

2,831.514

mlq

random

6

2,835.276

2,859.756

-1,411.638

2,823.276

8.238

3

0.041

empower

null

3

2,429.156

2,441.396

-1,211.578

2,423.156

empower

random

6

2,424.932

2,449.412

-1,206.466

2,412.932

10.224

3

0.017

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,993.905

2,006.145

-993.953

1,987.905

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,990.365

2,014.844

-989.182

1,978.365

9.540

3

0.023

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,165.530

2,177.769

-1,079.765

2,159.530

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,159.689

2,184.169

-1,073.845

2,147.689

11.840

3

0.008

sss_affective

null

3

2,234.916

2,247.155

-1,114.458

2,228.916

sss_affective

random

6

2,224.543

2,249.023

-1,106.272

2,212.543

16.372

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,251.833

2,264.073

-1,122.917

2,245.833

sss_behavior

random

6

2,246.197

2,270.676

-1,117.098

2,234.197

11.636

3

0.009

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,255.343

2,267.583

-1,124.671

2,249.343

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,247.081

2,271.560

-1,117.540

2,235.081

14.262

3

0.003

sss

null

3

3,125.079

3,137.318

-1,559.539

3,119.079

sss

random

6

3,112.840

3,137.319

-1,550.420

3,100.840

18.239

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.408

0.130

recovery_stage_a

2nd

99

3.21 ± 1.21

-0.007

88

3.29 ± 1.20

-0.222

0.638

-0.084

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

99

17.65 ± 2.88

0.125

88

18.54 ± 2.82

-0.413

0.034

-0.494

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.62

125

30.02 ± 5.62

0.637

-0.116

ras_confidence

2nd

99

30.40 ± 5.30

-0.248

88

31.94 ± 5.16

-0.661

0.046

-0.530

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.06

125

11.66 ± 2.06

0.902

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

99

11.65 ± 1.97

-0.024

88

12.00 ± 1.94

-0.275

0.222

-0.276

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.24

125

17.53 ± 3.24

0.402

-0.181

ras_goal

2nd

99

17.55 ± 3.09

-0.192

88

18.41 ± 3.03

-0.466

0.054

-0.456

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.621

-0.121

ras_reliance

2nd

99

13.47 ± 2.77

-0.216

88

14.00 ± 2.70

-0.441

0.188

-0.346

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.197

0.253

ras_domination

2nd

99

9.99 ± 2.31

-0.025

88

10.42 ± 2.28

-0.552

0.206

-0.274

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.81

125

30.21 ± 9.81

0.300

0.272

symptom

2nd

99

30.06 ± 9.19

0.305

88

28.83 ± 8.91

0.290

0.357

0.258

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.56

125

22.06 ± 4.56

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

99

22.44 ± 4.32

-0.151

88

22.61 ± 4.21

-0.225

0.779

-0.071

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.75

125

25.34 ± 5.75

0.249

-0.276

slof_relationship

2nd

99

24.89 ± 5.43

-0.128

88

25.95 ± 5.29

-0.200

0.178

-0.348

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.18

125

21.03 ± 7.18

0.133

-0.388

satisfaction

2nd

99

20.86 ± 6.74

-0.338

88

22.14 ± 6.54

-0.315

0.186

-0.365

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.74

125

11.00 ± 3.74

0.457

-0.187

mhc_emotional

2nd

99

10.97 ± 3.52

-0.172

88

11.36 ± 3.42

-0.194

0.439

-0.208

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.07

125

15.13 ± 6.07

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

99

15.86 ± 5.72

-0.234

88

16.20 ± 5.57

-0.343

0.680

-0.109

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.02

125

21.87 ± 7.02

0.719

-0.094

mhc_psychological

2nd

99

22.55 ± 6.58

-0.293

88

22.72 ± 6.38

-0.248

0.860

-0.049

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.35

125

16.94 ± 4.35

0.168

-0.302

resilisnce

2nd

99

16.91 ± 4.15

-0.292

88

18.12 ± 4.06

-0.471

0.045

-0.480

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.80

125

13.91 ± 2.80

0.036

-0.492

social_provision

2nd

99

13.06 ± 2.65

0.070

88

14.24 ± 2.58

-0.220

0.002

-0.782

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.332

-0.232

els_value_living

2nd

99

17.06 ± 3.01

-0.177

88

17.82 ± 2.93

-0.397

0.081

-0.451

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.29

125

13.10 ± 3.29

0.095

-0.434

els_life_fulfill

2nd

99

12.69 ± 3.08

-0.178

88

13.64 ± 2.99

-0.331

0.035

-0.587

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.387

els

2nd

99

29.77 ± 5.63

-0.213

88

31.46 ± 5.46

-0.430

0.037

-0.604

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.13

125

26.66 ± 9.13

0.293

0.272

social_connect

2nd

99

27.09 ± 8.57

0.176

88

24.35 ± 8.32

0.518

0.027

0.614

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 4.99

125

14.85 ± 4.99

0.112

-0.414

shs_agency

2nd

99

14.22 ± 4.68

-0.155

88

15.74 ± 4.55

-0.366

0.025

-0.624

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.06

125

16.34 ± 4.06

0.050

-0.462

shs_pathway

2nd

99

15.90 ± 3.84

-0.262

88

17.19 ± 3.74

-0.394

0.020

-0.594

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.61

125

31.18 ± 8.61

0.065

-0.478

shs

2nd

99

30.12 ± 8.08

-0.225

88

32.93 ± 7.85

-0.414

0.016

-0.667

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.56

125

12.73 ± 1.56

0.716

0.060

esteem

2nd

99

12.59 ± 1.54

0.173

88

12.83 ± 1.53

-0.081

0.298

-0.194

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.46

125

15.08 ± 3.46

0.101

-0.314

mlq_search

2nd

99

15.01 ± 3.35

-0.282

88

15.02 ± 3.30

0.025

0.972

-0.007

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.22

125

13.62 ± 4.22

0.385

-0.191

mlq_presence

2nd

99

13.74 ± 4.02

-0.240

88

14.54 ± 3.93

-0.379

0.169

-0.329

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.90

125

28.70 ± 6.90

0.176

-0.289

mlq

2nd

99

28.75 ± 6.60

-0.303

88

29.56 ± 6.47

-0.212

0.398

-0.197

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.50

125

19.38 ± 4.50

0.354

-0.222

empower

2nd

99

19.57 ± 4.25

-0.304

88

20.14 ± 4.14

-0.321

0.356

-0.239

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.50

125

14.35 ± 2.50

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

99

14.55 ± 2.43

-0.110

88

15.09 ± 2.40

-0.425

0.128

-0.310

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.09

125

11.70 ± 3.09

0.822

0.044

ismi_discrimation

2nd

99

11.34 ± 2.98

0.224

88

10.82 ± 2.94

0.437

0.232

0.257

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.63

125

10.62 ± 3.63

0.626

-0.122

sss_affective

2nd

99

10.03 ± 3.42

0.200

88

9.58 ± 3.32

0.567

0.363

0.245

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.042

sss_behavior

2nd

99

9.65 ± 3.50

0.277

88

9.32 ± 3.40

0.411

0.510

0.176

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.218

sss_cognitive

2nd

99

8.40 ± 3.51

0.165

88

8.12 ± 3.42

0.533

0.579

0.150

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.46

125

29.84 ± 10.46

0.677

-0.117

sss

2nd

99

28.09 ± 9.75

0.254

88

27.07 ± 9.43

0.584

0.471

0.214

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(392.28) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(423.66) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.43)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(324.68) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(385.23) = 2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.71)

ras_confidence

1st

t(303.21) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)

2st

t(361.04) = 2.00, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.03 to 3.04)

ras_willingness

1st

t(330.01) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)

2st

t(390.04) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.91)

ras_goal

1st

t(321.34) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)

2st

t(382.00) = 1.93, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st

t(304.29) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.46) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.31)

ras_domination

1st

t(339.61) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)

2st

t(397.69) = 1.27, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.09)

symptom

1st

t(295.87) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)

2st

t(350.66) = -0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.83 to 1.38)

slof_work

1st

t(310.42) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)

2st

t(370.12) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.40)

slof_relationship

1st

t(306.62) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(365.46) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.60)

satisfaction

1st

t(297.80) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)

2st

t(353.51) = 1.32, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.20)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(300.79) = 0.74, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(357.75) = 0.77, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.39)

mhc_social

1st

t(303.36) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)

2st

t(361.23) = 0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.97)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(296.57) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(351.70) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(319.38) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)

2st

t(380.02) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.39)

social_provision

1st

t(309.50) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(369.02) = 3.09, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.93)

els_value_living

1st

t(307.07) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)

2st

t(366.03) = 1.75, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.62)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(297.11) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)

2st

t(352.49) = 2.12, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.82)

els

1st

t(292.49) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(345.46) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 3.29)

social_connect

1st

t(297.55) = -1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(353.14) = -2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-5.18 to -0.32)

shs_agency

1st

t(297.11) = 1.60, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)

2st

t(352.49) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.85)

shs_pathway

1st

t(308.88) = 1.97, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)

2st

t(368.26) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.39)

shs

1st

t(297.50) = 1.85, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)

2st

t(353.06) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.52 to 5.11)

esteem

1st

t(381.15) = -0.36, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(419.86) = 1.04, p = 0.298, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(344.01) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(400.82) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st

t(319.23) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)

2st

t(379.86) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.95)

mlq

1st

t(323.78) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)

2st

t(384.38) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.69)

empower

1st

t(306.25) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)

2st

t(364.99) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.78)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(355.21) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)

2st

t(407.82) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.23)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(342.02) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)

2st

t(399.43) = -1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.33)

sss_affective

1st

t(300.95) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(357.97) = -0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.52)

sss_behavior

1st

t(301.68) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(358.97) = -0.66, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(300.17) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(356.88) = -0.56, p = 0.579, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.72)

sss

1st

t(289.78) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)

2st

t(341.10) = -0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.77 to 1.75)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(222.37) = 1.54, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.50)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(205.38) = 2.81, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.26)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(200.02) = 4.47, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (1.07 to 2.76)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(206.69) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(204.55) = 3.17, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.43)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(200.29) = 2.98, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(209.04) = 3.78, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.30)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(198.14) = -1.96, p = 0.103, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.76 to 0.01)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(201.84) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.28)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(200.88) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(198.64) = 2.13, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(199.40) = 1.31, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.91)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(200.05) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.98)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(198.32) = 1.68, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(204.07) = 3.20, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.91)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(201.61) = 1.49, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.77)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(200.99) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.16)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(198.46) = 2.24, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.00)

els

1st vs 2st

t(197.27) = 2.89, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.03)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(198.57) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.63 to -1.01)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(198.46) = 2.47, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(201.45) = 2.67, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.49)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(198.56) = 2.79, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.98)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(219.39) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(210.12) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.60)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(204.03) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(205.16) = 1.44, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.06)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(200.79) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.45)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(212.86) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(209.63) = -3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.47 to -0.30)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(199.44) = -3.83, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.58 to -0.51)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(199.63) = -2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.33 to -0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(199.24) = -3.60, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.45)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(196.56) = -3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.15 to -1.38)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.73) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.27)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(199.38) = -0.90, p = 0.740, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.27)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(195.57) = 1.77, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(200.32) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.38)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(198.79) = 1.38, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.89)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(195.77) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(202.00) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(194.25) = -2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.75 to -0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(196.86) = 1.08, p = 0.565, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.06)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(196.19) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(194.60) = 2.41, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.17)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(195.14) = 1.23, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(195.60) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.60)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(194.38) = 2.09, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(198.45) = 2.09, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.43)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(196.70) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.31)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(196.27) = 1.27, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.77)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(194.47) = 1.27, p = 0.413, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.16 to 0.73)

els

1st vs 2st

t(193.63) = 1.51, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.38)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(194.55) = -1.25, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.45)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(194.47) = 1.10, p = 0.542, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.05)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(196.59) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(194.54) = 1.60, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.12)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(209.52) = -1.25, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.12)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(202.77) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.27)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(198.42) = 1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.26)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(199.22) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.37)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(196.12) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.38)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(204.75) = 0.80, p = 0.854, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.67)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(202.42) = -1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.10)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(195.17) = -1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.14)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(195.30) = -1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.05 to -0.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(195.03) = -1.18, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.21)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(193.13) = -1.80, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.52 to 0.11)

Plot

Clinical significance